Worker processes

[Igor Sysoev]

On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 05:05:32PM +0200, Jason Lee wrote:

> Igor Sysoev wrote:
> > On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 11:10:59PM -0700, kingler wrote:
> > 
> >> If you have multiple CPUs, you can also try setting the number of
> >> worker processes to the same number of CPU cores.
> > 
> > It make sense only if nginx eats many CPU time for gzipping or SSL.
> > Otherwise OS may schedule all workers on single CPU.
> 
> So real quick I have to say, after using all the 'big' http servers, 
> Nginx is my favorite. Not just for the speed, but the configuration is 
> so much easier, so thanks! This is my default HTTP server now. :)
> 
> I'm running my production server on 2 x 4-core Xeons. I have my conf 
> setup with SSL, gzip. When hitting the server, the load is minimal.
> 
> I heard in this thread that 1 worker is enough. But if I needed more, 
> then I'd be more than happy to do that. I did play around with the 
> settings and when I cranked up the worker_processes to 10, it seemed 
> like my pages took a little bit more time - there was a lot of browser 
> activity it was showing me at the bottom of my window. However, when I 
> dropped the worker process down to 2 (where it's at now), everything 
> seemed snappier.
> 
> So is the worker process the one thread thread that listens on port 80? 
> Or is it a multithreaded process that listens and then uses the worker 
> connects (which are threads?) to listen to incoming requests? Or am I 
> completely wrong all together.

A worker process is one-threaded process.


-- 
Igor Sysoev
http://sysoev.ru/en/